True about MP?

I was just reading a review on Canon ....

The guy said " try to keep in mind, that more megapixels does not necessarily make a better camera. Especially once your over 5MP. "

True? your opinions?

It's not only about megapixels, it's about the sensor, the size of the sensor, the image processor(s), the lenses, etc...just because a camera has more megapixels than another that it is automatically better. Of course the most important thing is the photographer.

And you see, I thought it was always about the megapixels.

Ednra wrote: It's not only about megapixels, it's about the sensor, the size of the sensor, the image processor(s), the lenses, etc...just because a camera has more megapixels than another that it is automatically better. Of course the most important thing is the photographer.

Where the number of MP can become important is what you want to do with the images later on. If you plan to share them on the web, print 4x6 or 5x7's for friends and family, lower resolution cameras will easily do that. If you want to sell high-quality framed art in the 16x20 and larger sizes, MP does matter.. as do the other things Ednra mentioned above. That also pertains to shooting a wide landscape and trying to crop a 1-inch square piece of it and create an 8x10 print from that crop. You just won't have the pixel density to achieve nice results.

On the other hand, cramming too manyMP's onto a sensor can degrade the quality of the image, which will onmly become more obvious as you try to take advantage of the large file size. Canon actually reduced the number of MP's in their G line of P&S's, and the D3 produces noticeably less noise in images than the D3X.

John Landolfi wrote: On the other hand, cramming too manyMP's onto a sensor can degrade the quality of the image, which will onmly become more obvious as you try to take advantage of the large file size. Canon actually reduced the number of MP's in their G line of P&S's, and the D3 produces noticeably less noise in images than the D3X.

How does cramming to many mp degrades an image? Wouldn't it be like a big sensor can hold more MP, and then a better quality picture?

The Canon G12 went from 14 mp back to 10mp because they made a better sensor that produces less noise.

Fallin Star wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: On the other hand, cramming too manyMP's onto a sensor can degrade the quality of the image, which will onmly become more obvious as you try to take advantage of the large file size. Canon actually reduced the number of MP's in their G line of P&S's, and the D3 produces noticeably less noise in images than the D3X.

How does cramming to many mp degrades an image? Wouldn't it be like a big sensor can hold more MP, and then a better quality picture?

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digi...mera-sensor-size.htm

Beyond photo-receptor size and aperture diffraction issues, I've seen several examples of cheap 10+ megapixel compact cameras that have crappy lenses barely able to resolve 5mp.

Fallin Star wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: On the other hand, cramming too manyMP's onto a sensor can degrade the quality of the image, which will onmly become more obvious as you try to take advantage of the large file size. Canon actually reduced the number of MP's in their G line of P&S's, and the D3 produces noticeably less noise in images than the D3X.

How does cramming to many mp degrades an image? Wouldn't it be like a big sensor can hold more MP, and then a better quality picture?

That's the rub. Often the sensor isn't bigger, they simply cram more pixels in it, which are necessarily smaller, and so noisier, because the "static" consitutes a larger part of each site, and so is more noticeable. One of the differences between the D3 and the D3Xm for instance, is just that: less noise in the sensor with 12MP compared to the same size sensor with 23MP. Of course, the D3x gives you bigger files to work with, so much depends on your goals..